Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#881

Post by nijave »

ixsploit wrote: post #835
nijave wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I suppose same way you reduce spam and abuse anywhere else. Raise the cost enough it's not worth it. Some middle ground could be requiring mailed in applications. That's a marginal cost for a real applicant but a higher cost for someone trying to send swathes of applications out. It might seem backwards but there are plenty of solid non technical solutions to problems. You could also do automated reputation che…

> Raise the cost enough it's not worth it. Which is exactly what is happening here.

It sounds like they've gone and done it backwards. Raised the cost of legitimate applicants while keeping the cost the same for the spammers

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#882

Post by belter »

johncole wrote: post #798
belter wrote: post #351

Skip AI only interviews, blacklist firms that use them. Opaque algorithms will reject you for race, gender, age, then will give you zero feedback. It shows a signal of a “people are costs” culture a la Amazon. Your data becomes their training set. Video, voice, and text will be stored indefinitely and reused, with flimsy privacy safeguards.

How do you blacklist them? Anyone started a list of firms that do this?

Here is a list you can start with:

- Mastercard

- Electrolux

- Kuehne+Nagel

- Bon Secours Mercy Health

- Brother International Corporation

- Stanford Health Care

- Thermo Fisher Scientific

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#883

Post by throwawayoldie »

Bigpet wrote: post #528
throwawayoldie wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed the word "bullshit" is making a big comeback, which is encouraging to me. Because, good Lord, is there ever so much bullshit.

Very appropriate as well because the machines are given a bunch of feed to digest multiple times and to spew it out the other end as a big steaming pile.

Although I don't think the comparison is 100% fair: at least you can get some tasty beef off of a bull.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#884

Post by eunos »

strken wrote: post #856
siva7 wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, the myth that it's hard to fire incompetent people is total bullcrap, perpetuated by executives to avoid dealing with unions. I live in one of the countries with the strongest union protections and traditions in the world. It's not hard here to fire someone if you want to fire them´, even if in union.

I live in Australia and it's an absolute pain in the arse to fire someone for performance issues, assuming they work at a medium or large business (e.g. of more than 20 people) and they've made it through their 3-month trial period. You have to PIP them and the process takes months. I've known of two engineers whose managers told me they would have fired them, but higher management wouldn't let them initiate the PIP…

I think I'll take that over management doing lay offs because vibes or whatever.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#885

Post by selfhoster11 »

jstummbillig wrote: post #354
selfhoster11 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To call GPT-4o high intelligence, is aspirational (to put it more plainly: GPT-4o is such a bad model it's not worth paying for compared to what's out there). And yes, it is undemocratic - when was the last time you got a say over what the AI is allowed to do for you, let alone a say over any of the ideas for how to improve it?

$20 buys you o3 access. I have not run into limits for personal or professional information or research purposes. I am sure you can.

Last time I had access to o3 on a $20 subscription, the usage limit was laughably low. Accessing it through an API is much better value - I get over 1000 interactions with a much more controllable system message, which is a lot better than ChatGPT Plus.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#886

Post by strken »

eunos wrote: post #884
strken wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Australia and it's an absolute pain in the arse to fire someone for performance issues, assuming they work at a medium or large business (e.g. of more than 20 people) and they've made it through their 3-month trial period. You have to PIP them and the process takes months. I've known of two engineers whose managers told me they would have fired them, but higher management wouldn't let them initiate the PIP…

I think I'll take that over management doing lay offs because vibes or whatever.

I don't completely disagree and I prefer it to systems with zero protection. At-will employment from the US seems bad. However, siva7 said it was a "myth" and "total bullcrap" that firing incompetent people is hard, and it's just not.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#887

Post by tamimio »

Probably one of the reasons the job market is shit right now is the lazy HR using AI in the procurement and now in the interview process, and since it isn’t regulated, having a blackbox AI doing the decision making, it will never be a good thing.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#888

Post by zx8080 »

glenngillen wrote: post #787
recursivecaveat wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having thousands of applicants is only an issue if you give yourself the contrived problem of hiring the best person who sent you a resume. Your true objective is to strike a balance between cost of search and hiring someone from the top N% of potential people. Nobody has ever walked into a grocery store and bemoaned that there's no way they could locate the ripest banana in the building. You pick a number, evaluate…

One of the refreshing things about the Amazon/AWS hiring approach was basically this. Did we agree this person can do the job? First one to get to a yes gets an offer. No interviewing all the candidates and stack ranking and trying juggle them to have a plan A and plan B (though people could influence that somewhat through scheduling). First qualified candidate succeeds and everyone gets back to work.

> No interviewing all the candidates and stack ranking and trying juggle them to have a plan A and plan B (though people could influence that somewhat through scheduling).

What do you mean by this?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#889

Post by XorNot »

WaxProlix wrote: post #875
XorNot wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same story. The problem was the US wasn't going to invade the North, and China supplying the NVA added a long tail supply chain that wasnt being touched. What you might do better to note is both of those conflicts consisted of the US invading someone else's home soil to effect change and being outlasted in terms of public interest - a public who at home were living peaceful, first world lifestyles. Everyones little c…

I don't really agree - a dedicated populous with light arms in both cases was able to ward off a full victory on their home turf, and the US caved to losses and other pressures (60k dead americans in 'nam, hundreds of thousands wounded physically, notorious trauma uncounted etc). I don't have any sort of civil war fantasy, but I think that holding out against a military deployment in-country until it became socially…

Sure...in 20 years. The US stayed in Afghanistan for long enough a whole new generation grew up after the occupation had started.

There's many dictatorships which are considerably older then that, yet weapons are easily available or common - Iraqis didn't lack for small arms during Saddam's rule.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#890

Post by sam_bristow »

liveoneggs wrote: post #851
atoav wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who interviewed people for technical roles, I'd see that as a bad sign and answer: "Just tell me what you can think about." This isn't school where teachers give you trick questions and you fail if you misunderstand it. If you are applying as a software developer and you can't talk at length about various forms of interfaces you are probably not very experienced. UI, API, ABI are all interfaces..

> This isn't school where teachers give you trick questions and you fail if you misunderstand it Please explain leetcode live sessions, random brain teasers (how many pinball balls blah blah blah), weird off-the-wall questions (you were just in a plane crash/you wake up as a cockroach), AI trivia screeners, and the rest?

I've been doing a bunch of receuiting recently and I make a point at the beginning of each interview to explicitly tell them that we don't do trick questions. We also don't do leetcode at all.

My approach to interviewing is that I want candidates to do the best they possibly can.

Post reply on HN